PCC Cookie Policy
We use cookies to give you the best possible experience on our website. By continuing to browse this site, you give consent for cookies to be used. For more information on how we use cookies, and how to remove them, please read our Cookie Policy.

A woman complained to the Press Complaints Commission that an article
published in the Strathspey & Badenoch Herald could have identified her
daughter as a victim of sexual assault in breach of Clause 11 (Victims of
sexual assault), intruded into her shock in breach of Clause 5 (Intrusion into
grief or shock) and breached Clause 6 (Children) of the Code.

The complaint was upheld.

The article reported the conviction of a man for sexual offences
against under-age girls. The complainant
is the mother of one of the victims. She
said the level of detail – in particular the reference to a visible injury
previously suffered by her daughter, coupled with the location and time in
which she and the man in question had first met – would have assisted those in
her small community in identifying her daughter. This being the case, there were also breaches
of Clauses 5 and 6.

The newspaper did not believe that any detail in the article would have
led to the identification of the girl.
The article did not disclose her name, address or school. The town in which the incidents took place
was a busy holiday resort with hundreds of thousands of visitors every year,
and the family did not live there. The
article was a fair and accurate account of court proceedings. The paper noted that the complainant had
indicated that no third party had identified her daughter as a result of the
article.

Decision: Upheld

Adjudication:

The terms of Clause 11 of the Code are tightly drawn in order to
protect victims of sexual assault – one of the most vulnerable groups of people
– and rigorously enforced by the Commission.
While the information about the girl’s injury may have seemed to some to
be insignificant, it was a superfluous but specific detail which the Commission
was persuaded could have been sufficient to identify her, or confirm the
suspicions of those who already knew something about the case.
While the editor arguably had a difficult job
to do in striking the balance between what was legitimate detail and what was
likely to contribute to the girl’s identification, the Commission considered
that he could have taken greater care in this case by omitting the reference to
the injury.
As the Commission found that
the material was likely to have contributed to the girl’s identification in
this way, it followed that the content of the article would have had a
considerable impact on the girl in breach of Clauses 5 and 6.
The complaint
was upheld on that basis.

******************************************************

The breach of the Code in this case arose from the possible
identification of the victim.
While the
Commission acknowledged the complainant’s additional concerns that the article
had included sensationalised and gratuitous detail about the case, it
emphasised that newspapers were entitled to report fully on information
revealed in open court, provided the identity of the victim was properly
protected.